Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Chris_Halkides]

not the first time the matter has come up

No. I'm not changing subjects to suit your whims. I was discussing the condition of the ground underneath Filomena's window. Do you have any detailed, close-up photos of that?

Fuji,
You have been one of the most vocal advocates for the staged break-in theory; therefore, my asking you to support this claim with evidence is not changing the subject. Nor is it the first time I have attempted to discuss it with you. I am disappointed that you do not wish to discuss this key question.

 

[LondonJohn]

What Rudy did to Meredith (and whether he acted alone or with others) cannot be explained by his being sexually attracted to her and forcing himself on her. It was testified to in court and concluded in the motivations that Rudy had shown no prior interest in Meredith.

Where does it say in Massei that Guede was not attracted to Meredith? He was known (and there's testimony to support it IIRC) to lust after caucasian girls*, so I think there's every possibility that he was sexually attracted to her. Add in the adrenaline rush of the situation, and the fact that Meredith was demonstrably alone in the cottage (and let's not forget Massei's track record of woeful reasoning in other areas), and I think this is an entirely reasonable possibility.

* Yes, I know that Meredith was of mixed race, but I would consider her ethnicity to be caucasian enough to appeal to Guede's sensibilities.

 

[Chris C]

...or the doors to the balcony.

Of course, he probably never noticed them while he was casing the joint, or partying with the dudes downstairs.

Oh, wait. The house is surrounded by impenetrable forest. I forgot.

Never mind.

I'm thinking about the same number as in a staged break-in.

Maybe even one less under the right circumstances, but that isn't germane to this discussion.

Imprenetrable forest, thats your arguing point against the break in? Whether or not its germane to the discussion is not really of much importance. Because apparently your stuck on a break in wouldn't happen through Filomena's window. It seems alot of pro guilt are stuck on the window. That seems to be their reasoning behind their belief in guilt. So I'll ask you this. Do you think the computer Guede had that was stolen, was an inside job or did the people actually break in through that 2nd story window? Whats more likely to have happened. Someone actually did break in through 2nd story windows by climbing the burlgar bars of the lower window. Or Guede wasn't involved in 2 staged break ins because he wasn't there when they happened?

 

[quadraginta]

The point is not that the patio door was or was not a potential means of exit for Guede - of course it was. The point is that it's entirely reasonable to construct a scenario wherein Guede did not exit the house via the patio door, and instead confronted and murdered Meredith (and very possibly raped her as well), before taking her keys and leaving via the front door.

That was my point. I'm not responsible for anyone else.

Any number of scenarios can be constructed ... including ones which "could have" employed the balcony door. There seems to be a noticeable resistance among some groups to contemplating even the existence, much less the potentials inherent in the presence of that door. I'm only reminding people of it.

I would also point out that even if the front door had been conventional (in the sense that it could be opened from the inside without the need for a key),...

The door was "conventional", at least until someone intentionally disabled the spring latch. Having done that there was also no way to lock the door from the inside without a key. There is nothing unconventional about an entrance door which requires a key to allow passage in from the exterior. Sometimes it can prove inconvenient, which appears to have been the case with that door.

We've been through this before. Are you still trying to flail the pieces of that horse?

... it's still reasonable to construct a scenario in which Guede decides not to leave straight away, but to force himself on a girl whom he finds sexually attractive and who is alone with him in the cottage.

Sure. It's reasonable. Utterly irrelevant to my point, but I've been over that already.

 

[Katody Matrass]

The point is not that the patio door was or was not a potential means of exit for Guede - of course it was. The point is that it's entirely reasonable to construct a scenario wherein Guede did not exit the house via the patio door, and instead confronted and murdered Meredith (and very possibly raped her as well), before taking her keys and leaving via the front door.

I would also point out that even if the front door had been conventional (in the sense that it could be opened from the inside without the need for a key), it's still reasonable to construct a scenario in which Guede decides not to leave straight away, but to force himself on a girl whom he finds sexually attractive and who is alone with him in the cottage.

Right.

I'd only add that we discussed points of exit in the context of Guede trying to sneak out unnoticed by Meredith, who just got home. In this scenario it's doubtful he would succeed that way. But Quadraginta may be right a little bit - e.g. Guede tried the balcony door, Meredith saw him and he attacked her.

 

[Diocletus]

And somehow to you the purported existence of glass micro-shards is more significant than the established presence of untrampled vegetation, whose existence even you have acknowledged?

Yes. Because according to Massei, if there is no glass on the ground, then the storm shutters were closed when the rock was thrown, which can only mean that it was thrown from inside. Conversely, if there was glass on the ground outside, then the storm shutters would have been open when the rock was thrown, in which case we know it must have been thrown from outside because the miraculous ricochet described in Massei's opinion could not have occurred without closed shutters.

Whether trampled vegetation was observed would not change anything if Massei is wrong about the rock being thrown from outside. And, as pointed out in my prior post, the only evidence that Massei cites for the proposition that there was no glass on the ground is the testimony of someone who was not looking for glass.

It's well-established that if you purport to prove the absence of something, you must show, at least, that you looked for it and didn't find it. All we have here is a witness who was not particularly looking for glass on the ground, and then Massei extraoplating that to a finding that there was no glass.

 

[moije2]

Let me clarify this. One of the earliest complaints about the case is that there was no official interpreter. The prosecution countered that there was an official interpreter. In court the person testified that she saw her role as a mediator. She also testified that she did things, like encouraging memory with helpful little stories about her traumatic amnesia related to breaking her ankle, which showed she was not acting as a translator (i.e. sticking to translating independently as opposed to working on behalf of the police).

Now Rose shows us a study showing that there is no offical registration for translators, the difference between mediators and translators is not well defined, and that if you are arrested there, good luck.

I hate to say it but this is another deficiency that is crying out for reform.

I apologize ahead of time if I have missed some of the intent connected with this "official interpreter" discussion. I mostly scanned over it thinking this subject was being just a little over-beaten. So let me contribute to the beating! I would suggest that the use of the term "official" or other such term <may> have weight in evaluating the quality of interpretation provided, but as quoted above by spartacus, the interpreter involved testified (as I understand from info in this thread) to doing more than just strict interpretation. So even if she was an "official interpreter", it is her performance which should be considered. Certification or registration, if based on some sort of system of competence, will help raise the level but not solve all of the problems.

I have worked for years with interpreters in both medical and legal settings (in the US) and those interpreters have largely been paid professionals with some level of certification. As everyone knows, people are not interchangeable widgets, and different skill levels are seen. And as we have seen with this case, words frequently do not translate literally and and there is also a cultural filter that affects the understanding. So, the real issue is what the interpreter did, as opposed to the title you want to stick on them. Many times an interpreter will add connotation as part of the translation, and also at the specific request the person receiving the translation. One could easily imagine that the police interpreter in small town Perugia could be quite competent, but not as competent as an interpreter for the United Nations. Or maybe not so competent. She also may have been well meaning in acting more as a mediator, although we start from the fact that she works for the police (that was established wasn't it?) and her allegiance lies with them. Or was she sympathetic with Amanda in a motherly fashion, eg?

Bottom line is that IMO we should focus, not the nomenclature, but on the quality of service that was provided and that seems best illustrated by the testimony of the interpreter herself.

 

[Diocletus]

And am I seriously supposed to believe that that was the condition of the ground underneath Filomena's window before the period of examination to which Ms. Brocci testified under oath?

If the condition of the ground was such an important issue for Brocci, then why did she not take pictures of it? After all, isn't that her job--to take pictures of important things? How would it sound if she had said "well, I saw this trampled vegetation, but anyway, I didn't take a picture." She would sound, well . . . incompetent.

 

[Katody Matrass]

I know this question was not directed at me, but if you'd be so kind as to allow me answer anyway:

Photographs, additional testimony, and/or other material evidence of the condition of the ground underneath Filomena's window on the afternoon of 2 Nov 2007.

I'm afraid no such things exist nor were presented in court. Ironically what Massei based his argument was the testimony of ILE photographer, not his photographs

 

[Katody Matrass]

You forgot a prerequisite - "0) Guede stands on the ground underneath Filomena's room".

I'm guessing that's because you have no evidence to support such an assertion. That's okay - neither have Knox's or Sollecito's attorneys.

LondonJohn is of course right that is not up to defence to prove anything.

I'd only add that your prerequisite is actually not needed. Quite probably Guede, after throwing the stone across the gap stepped down from the patio directly on the window grating. Natural way to get to the grating is not from beneath but from the stones supporting the slope, to the right of the grilled window.

 

[quadraginta]

Imprenetrable forest, thats your arguing point against the break in?

Well ... umm ...

No.

You must have missed that episode. That's LJ's arguing point for the break-in, or at least the reason for using Filomena's window. As I understand it, since the walkway around to the front of the cottage presents a formidable confinement ("Trapped! Like a Marsfly in a Klein bottle.") the only other way to escape the vicinity is by scrabbling out of the cul-de-sac below Filomena's window. This would suggest that the surrounding stand of trees was somehow impassable to humans.

Whether or not its germane to the discussion is not really of much importance.

Sure it is.

Did you know that there is a name for responding to an argument that someone didn't make?

Because apparently your stuck on a break in wouldn't happen through Filomena's window.

I'm not "stuck" on anything. People who adamantly refuse to entertain any possibilities which reflect badly on what they want to believe would be more fertile ground for you to search for that sort of behavior.

It seems alot of pro guilt are stuck on the window. That seems to be their reasoning behind their belief in guilt. So I'll ask you this. Do you think the computer Guede had that was stolen, was an inside job or did the people actually break in through that 2nd story window? Whats more likely to have happened. Someone actually did break in through 2nd story windows by climbing the burlgar bars of the lower window. Or Guede wasn't involved in 2 staged break ins because he wasn't there when they happened?

You're becoming a little bit incoherent. Maybe you should try to organize your thoughts.

 

[Draca]

No. I'm not changing subjects to suit your whims. I was discussing the condition of the ground underneath Filomena's window. Do you have any detailed, close-up photos of that?

No I do not. And why not?! Where are they Fuji? It isn't the defenses job to provide these photos and documentation. That is the job of the police. The way they have left it we have to take the word of Profazio and co. who checked it out by eye. There has been more than enough reasons based on how they handled other areas of the crime scene investigations to not put trust in their undocumented statements. They should have photos, close ups of the wall and ground. There should be photos of the team raking the grass for glass and also showing someone trying to enter through the window to see if it was possible. They failed. As they have in numerous, multiple ways during this investigation. I have ZERO faith left in anything they have to say. They need to prove their case. That I know is my opinion only. The court, at least under Massei, has shown little interest in making the prosecution prove their case. For Massei - possible, indeed probable has been the standard.

 

[Katody Matrass]

And somehow to you the purported existence of glass micro-shards is more significant than the established presence of untrampled vegetation, whose existence even you have acknowledged?

For completeness I'd add that such "presence of untrampled vegetation" does not prove anything. Vegetation tends to "untrample" itself without outside help

We don't know how many cops and other people walked around that house before the photographer got there to notice (but not photograph) the state of vegetation, but quite probably more than a one. Why would anyone stepping there the night before leave anything noticeable? It's not like Guede rolled in that grass and dry leaves there like a dog or nuzzled it like a pig, after all.

 

[Draca]

You forgot a prerequisite - "0) Guede stands on the ground underneath Filomena's room".

I'm guessing that's because you have no evidence to support such an assertion. That's okay - neither have Knox's or Sollecito's attorneys.

The prosecution also has no evidence to support their assertion.

It is their burden of proof.

 

[quadraginta]

Right.

I'd only add that we discussed points of exit in the context of Guede trying to sneak out unnoticed by Meredith, who just got home. In this scenario it's doubtful he would succeed that way. But Quadraginta may be right a little bit - e.g. Guede tried the balcony door, Meredith saw him and he attacked her.

I am right. The balcony door provided a means of egress in addition to the entry door and Filomena's window. I am completely right about that. Which is more than "a little bit."

Aside from that I have made no claims at all ... nor conjectures, neither.

It is remarkable the amount of furor even the slightest mention of that door can inspire in certain circles. Kinda like kicking a fire ant nest, with a similar quality of aimless and potentially venomous activity.

 

[Katody Matrass]

Nice try at reversal of the burden of proof, there. YOU are the one making the claim ("almost certainly"), so back it up, big boy.

Actually it's backed up by common sense.

The simple fact that nothing like this have been proposed in the courtroom should make you stop and think.

 

[LondonJohn]

That was my point. I'm not responsible for anyone else.



The door was "conventional", at least until someone intentionally disabled the spring latch. Having done that there was also no way to lock the door from the inside without a key. There is nothing unconventional about an entrance door which requires a key to allow passage in from the exterior. Sometimes it can prove inconvenient, which appears to have been the case with that door.

We've been through this before. Are you still trying to flail the pieces of that horse?

Hmmmm... straw man, perhaps?

As you yourself seem to be affiliated to the building trade, you should be aware that it's unusual for the main exterior door to any premises to need a key to lock it shut (and therefore to unlock it again). I would hope that you can see that this presents a potential safety hazard, if the occupants of a house are unable to find a key to unlock the door in the event of (e.g.) a fire inside the house. Indeed, I believe that buliding regulations in many parts of the world stipulate that for new installations the main exterior door should be able to be unlocked from the inside without needing any sort of key - I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong in this.

And this door - whether by accident or design - was indeed unconventional in this respect. We're not talking about the need for a key to open the door from the outside, by the way (and as per your straw man above). We're talking about the fact that the door needed to be locked and unlocked from the inside using a key. This was the case on the night of the murder, so it's entirely correct to say that on the night of the murder, Guede (or anyone else) was faced with an unconventional situation where a key was needed to unlock and open the main exterior door.

 

[LondonJohn]

For completeness I'd add that such "presence of untrampled vegetation" does not prove anything. Vegetation tends to "untrample" itself without outside help

We don't know how many cops and other people walked around that house before the photographer got there to notice (but not photograph) the state of vegetation, but quite probably more than a one. Why would anyone stepping there the night before leave anything noticeable? It's not like Guede rolled in that grass and dry leaves there like a dog or nuzzled it like a pig, after all.

Absolutely agree. Although there was perhaps a possibility that, given that it had recently rained, there might be a presence (or absence) of indentations in the muddy ground. But I would imagine that a wet muddy, grassy, leafy patch of ground would be near impossible to analyse for the absence of human activity upon it. We're not talking about a freshly-poured concrete floor, after all.......

In any case, as you say, all this is moot because we know that the "crack" police team trampled all over the ground in question before they even realised that it might be important evidence.

 

[Katody Matrass]

I am right. The balcony door provided a means of egress in addition to the entry door and Filomena's window. I am
completely right about that. Which is more than "a little bit."

I said "a bit" because by stating the obvious you didn't make any sensible point in the context of the discussion which was "Guede trying to leave without being noticed by Meredith". Yes there is a balcony door. You can exit by the door unless it's locked. Guede couldn't leave by the balcony door unnoticed because it was in full view one meter from Meredith's room.

It is remarkable the amount of furor even the slightest mention of that door can inspire in certain circles. Kinda like kicking a fire ant nest, with a similar quality of aimless and potentially venomous activity.

Honestly, I got an impression you're the only one who got overly excited.

 

[LondonJohn]

Well ... umm ...

No.

You must have missed that episode. That's LJ's arguing point for the break-in, or at least the reason for using Filomena's window. As I understand it, since the walkway around to the front of the cottage presents a formidable confinement ("Trapped! Like a Marsfly in a Klein bottle.") the only other way to escape the vicinity is by scrabbling out of the cul-de-sac below Filomena's window. This would suggest that the surrounding stand of trees was somehow impassable to humans.

Ah, I see what you've done: you've completely misrepresented me to suit your own agenda. Magnifique!

What I actually argued was that if Guede (or whoever) had chosen the balcony doors, he would have been faced with two problems that were much lessened by choosing Filomena's window: the first is the sheer extra distance he'd have needed to cover in order to escape if he was spotted breaking in (or if there was someone in the cottage), and the second is that the only way back to the driveway (and the main road) from the ground below the balcony involves a narrow bottleneck at the side of the wall of Laura's bedroom. Any burglar would prefer to avoid confined confrontations if possible, and the exit from below Filomena's window was both fast and broad. The visibility of both Filomena's window and the balcony doors from the main road is actually fairly similar (but from different directions on the road).

And I've actually thought of a third reason why Filomena's window might have made more sense than the balcony: If there was someone inside the cottage (someone dozing with the lights off, for example) who was alerted by the breaking window, they might well have come to the front door to investigate. The only way out from the balcony area meant having to pass the front door area, whereas the exit from below Filomena's window would take any burglar directly away from the front door.